Speed dating in aberdeen scotland

24-Feb-2020 06:52

Although there were cameras onboard, as one of the Blue Fox's regular customers -- Adrian Bradyshaw -- pointed out to me: "The capture on film (let alone a good quality identifying photo) of a fleeting event, such as the appearance of a GW at the side of your boat, to disappear as quickly as it materialised, is no mean feat." Consequently, there were no photos taken and so, despite the remarkable credibility of this account, there remains no unquestionable proof of the shark species involved.The credibility of the Blue Fox encounter was enhanced by two subsequent events shortly afterwards.The crew, which included two angling journalists fishing for Porbeagles () during their trips and were able to rule out all three.Additionally, Mr Turner spent many years living off a boat in South Africa and is very familiar with white sharks; he is adamant the animal he saw was a Great white.the Natural History Museum’s Fish Curator Oliver Crimmen, and the Shark Trust’s Richard Peirce -- probably saw the original footage, which one can imagine was of significantly better quality (although having read Richard Peirce's account in his Sharks of British Seas, I'm not so sure anymore! Regardless, the experts gave the only response they could under the circumstances: that the animal in the video looked like a large shark and a Great white could not be ruled out.That is apparently all some of the tabloids needed to hear and declared a “killer fish” present in UK waters.Indeed, according to an article in ) they had caught when they were investigated by a large shark, estimated to be around 4.6m (15ft) long.

September 1999), a lobster fisherman reported a large shark -- estimated to be about 4.6m -- entangled in his rope off Tintagel Head, about 18km (12 mi.) away from the initial sighting.

The video was picked up by and made the front page of their 28th July 2007 edition.

Video stills appeared in the paper itself, while the video was put on the newspaper’s website.

The topic died down for a while before re-emerging in the papers briefly during March 2005, when several dead porpoises washed up along the Durham coast with what appeared to be large bite marks in them.

Closer inspection, however, suggested that the mammals were caught as bycatch, dumped back in the water and the ‘bite marks’ were caused by seagulls and other small scavengers pecking at exposed flesh.

September 1999), a lobster fisherman reported a large shark -- estimated to be about 4.6m -- entangled in his rope off Tintagel Head, about 18km (12 mi.) away from the initial sighting.The video was picked up by and made the front page of their 28th July 2007 edition.Video stills appeared in the paper itself, while the video was put on the newspaper’s website.The topic died down for a while before re-emerging in the papers briefly during March 2005, when several dead porpoises washed up along the Durham coast with what appeared to be large bite marks in them.Closer inspection, however, suggested that the mammals were caught as bycatch, dumped back in the water and the ‘bite marks’ were caused by seagulls and other small scavengers pecking at exposed flesh.Ives only a few days after the dolphin footage was taken.